Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Noah's ark?
Noah's ark?
« previous page 1
2
3
...
4 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by 7dk2h4md720ih on Tue Apr 27th at 8:46pm 2004

Religion is forced on people though, and only recently has it begun to lose lots of its sway.

I think common sense should be forced upon people in huge doses. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Leperous on Tue Apr 27th at 11:07pm 2004

? posted by Gwil

TBH science could be a much more productive force for good if it didnt insist on entrenching itself in a war on shattering peoples faith...

Er, who's going up that mountain to have a look? Who's commissioning research into the Turin Shroud, Jesus Box (which turned out to be a fake ), etc.? Science doesn't give a s**t about religion, it's meant to be an objective, unbiased view on the world, but when you start trying to bend it to fit your religious beliefs is when you get it involved...





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Tue Apr 27th at 11:40pm 2004

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Kage_Prototype on Tue Apr 27th at 11:46pm 2004

? quote:
What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."


"A band said it in one of their songs! It must be right!"

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Cassius on Wed Apr 28th at 12:54am 2004

Nothing is objective, Lep - people investigate events talked about in the bible for two reasons: to strengthen or put down faith.





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Gwil on Wed Apr 28th at 1:26am 2004

? posted by Yak_Fighter

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

more like we're armenian weirdos who make mostly s**t music

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Wed Apr 28th at 2:16am 2004

? posted by Yak_Fighter

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

Spoken as someone who truely does not understand science.

? posted by Cassius

Nothing is objective, Lep - people investigate events talked about in the bible for two reasons: to strengthen or put down faith.

What about simple curiosity? there are people in the world who simply want to know, and find it to be an interesting intelectual puzzle

? posted by Gwil

TBH science could be a much more productive force for good if it didnt insist on entrenching itself in a war on shattering peoples faith...

Absolutly. Research into the validity of religion, beyond causing a popular backlash against science, is simply a waste of resources which might be better spent on devloping practical fusion power or somthing similarly significant and interesting.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed Apr 28th at 2:24am 2004

? posted by Tracer Bullet
? posted by Yak_Fighter

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

Spoken as someone who truely does not understand science.

I do believe that what I said was in jest. I would think that quoting from a SOAD song would make that clear. If you're directing that to SOAD, then, well, they have a bunch of strange ideas. "They're trying to build a prison...for you and me!"





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by GrimlocK on Wed Apr 28th at 3:03am 2004

? posted by Yak_Fighter
? posted by Tracer Bullet
? posted by Yak_Fighter

What's science done for us recently? That's right, nothing! ...And according to System of a Down, a well respected and intelligent think tank, "Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth."

Spoken as someone who truely does not understand science.

I do believe that what I said was in jest. I would think that quoting from a SOAD song would make that clear. If you're directing that to SOAD, then, well, they have a bunch of strange ideas. "They're trying to build a prison...for you and me!"

Most musicians don't always belive what they write in thier songs lyrics. Just look back at black sabath, or better yet how about all those sappy love songs on the radio, what a load of crap. Its almost always about $$$, hard to belive but thats the bottom line. Who knows if S.O.A.D. even writes their own music, you'd be shocked if you knew how many bands have writers for most of their music. Anyway I'm sliding off topic pretty hard. Anyway I'm sure you already know this yak.





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Cash Car Star on Wed Apr 28th at 3:19am 2004

It's the pop acts that get the ghost writing done... quite frankly I can't see anyone but System of a Down writing songs for System of a Down.



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by GrimlocK on Wed Apr 28th at 4:38am 2004

Yea, could be, you never know though.



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Crono on Wed Apr 28th at 4:59am 2004

I think people are actually confused about what proper 'science' is.

Science is the persuit of accurate knowledge to understand our surroundings.

Science advances by disproof as it is rather easy to prove something to be true. Not to mention if you want to belive something enough you wont see it any way besides what you believe.

However, Science is not unlike religion, in both you start with an idea, then you take a leap of faith (religieon) or a Hypothesis (science) and build on top of that.

There are also other things that have been widely adopted that just haven't been proven. Relgion is one, but it's fine if you believe it or not, it's your choice.

Macro Evolution (or is it micro) is another, its NOT the survival of the fittest one. I think it's macro, anyway, Macro evolution hasn't really been proven or disproven, but people believe it. Same thing with the Big Bang. We don't and will probably never know how these things actually work/happened.

The reason why they're doubting macro evolution is because of our time mapping techniques. Scientics estimated something like 30 million years inbetween the destruction of the dinosaurs and creation of humans ... yet ... we can find incredible amounts of Dinosaur fossils, but not many, if any human fossils. You would think you'd run into the most recent species first. There's been so many fakes of the missing link its rediculous.

Also, after St. Helens blew, they took rock samples and clocked them back to something like 20 million years old ... and that's blaintanly false, since they saw it happen 2 months (or so) before hand.

I guess the point is, you can't prove or disprove either belief system, especially not with the other.

Check out "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer, specifically chapter 3 called "How Thinking Goes Wrong"

Sorry, I don't have any links for it [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by scary_jeff on Wed Apr 28th at 9:55am 2004

I think when they say "They're trying to build a prison...for you and me!", they are talking about how there are always more and more regulations, restrictions, and monitoring in our society. They were talking a while ago about introducing a system in new houses where it would be impossible to run a bath that was 'too hot', to stop anyone getting scalded - there seem to be more and more rediculous regulations with the aim being to prevent anything bad ever happening to anyone, but the result being that people can't do anything without bumping into some stupid rule



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by DesPlesda on Wed Apr 28th at 10:44am 2004

To all people who take the bible literally - if there were only two gazelles, and two lions on the ark, and they were adrift for forty days, what do you think the carnivourous lions would do? Even if the gazelles started breeding immediately after getting on board the ark, there would be no hope of species continuation. The gestation period for the gazelle is 5.5 to 6 months. You can't just jumpstart an ecosystem with such a small amount of animals, to paraphrase a slashdotter.

Now, what does this have to do with the real world? Well, I can see three ways of looking at the bible.

1. All of the miraculous activity in the bible - the smiting of Sodom and Gemorrah, the resurrection of Jesus, creation of the universe - is misinterpretation of natural events or just made up
2. The bible is true, word for word
3. Bits of the bible are true, word for word, but the rest is just exaggeration or myth

Many people jump at 3, but it begs the question - which bits?



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by KoRnFlakes on Wed Apr 28th at 10:53am 2004

noahs ark was a re-write of an egyptian story of a rich trader who survived a large flood, living off his stock he planned to sell. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Wild Card on Wed Apr 28th at 10:56am 2004

I vote the first option. I mean, we didnt come from Adam and Eve... Unless they were really horny and did it every day for their entire lives.. We cant really go from 2 people to 7 billion in 2000+ years.

Personally I dont believe any of it.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Biological Component on Wed Apr 28th at 11:10am 2004

? posted by Leperous

To me it seems that the Noah account is technically impossible- genetic diversity in humans and animals...

What is so technichally impossible about genetic diversity from a base of 8 people(the number of humans said to be on the Ark)? As far as science has shown, there is enough genetic information within 2 individuals to produce hundreds of billions of variations. Multiply just 100 billion to the fourth power, and that brings you to a number higher than my calculator can handle...





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by DesPlesda on Wed Apr 28th at 11:12am 2004

Are you saying that it would be possible for all human genetic diversity could have sprung from a single source over 2,000 years if they mated often enough? The second generation would all have to mate with each other, and we'd all be very very close to genetically identical. There's no way you could get the kind of genetic diversity we have now in such a short amount of time.



Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Leperous on Wed Apr 28th at 11:17am 2004

So assuming Noah was arabic/middle eastern, we could get aboriginees, north american indians, africans, chinese, indian, polynesian, etc. etc. people in a few hundred generations? And get them to these places around the world and populate them, too?

And I wasn't just referring to humans. I don't see how you can account for the billions of animal/plant/etc. species on this earth, given an extinction event, no macroevolution, and a couple of hundred animals on a boat. Fill up an oil tanker with all the different animals you can, and enough so they don't interbreed themselves to death, and tell me that they'll 'microevolve' in a couple of thousand years to something just as diverse as we see today.





Quote
 Re: Noah's ark?
Posted by Biological Component on Wed Apr 28th at 11:18am 2004

Indeed it is true that there would have been close family mating as that would be the only possibility in such a scenario. However, the possilble combinations in the species would multiply exponentially with each generation. [addsig]




« previous page 1
2
3
...
4 next page »
Post Reply